A statement by the Justice Ministry said, “Following new information received… from Israel Police and in view of other developments in connection with the matter… the Attorney-General has ordered an investigation to be carried out by police concerning various aspects of the issue.”

The probe is being held to determine if Shimron acted out of a conflict of interest, among other issues.

Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman said Wednesday that the purchase of the submarines, which will brings Israel’s fleet up to nine, was the right decision for the country. He added that the move was supported by “a large consensus in the security and political establishment.”

The decision to purchase the subs was made by the government after recommendations by the security cabinet, the National Security Council and the Foreign Ministry. Israeli media have been focused on scrutinizing the move, with Israel’s Channel 10 TV news among those who have been accused of seeking ways to undermine the prime minister.

Shimron has been the prime minister’s personal lawyer for many years, but is also representing the German company that sells the submarines. Channel 10 has alleged the sale was opposed by the IDF and former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon.

An IDF spokesperson said earlier this month, however, that the military had informed the cabinet of a “need” for new submarines. The National Security Agency (NSA), said in a statement that there was been a “wave of false reports” and that in fact, the deal with Germany to purchase the latest group of new submarines was fully supported by Ya’alon.

Israel and Germany have begun top echelon political and security negotiations of the purchase of new Dolphin class submarines, Israel Defense reported Friday. The IDF’s five-submarine fleet, its most expensive weapons system, is its longest arm in a potential war with a nuclear Iran. The purchase of the sixth submarine was an option that was part of the 2012 deal signed between the two countries, with Germany paying for about a third of the cost of each sub — $180 million out of half a billion dollars.

In the past the IDF’s strategic thinking regarding the submarine fleet was in dispute between former Defense Minister Ehud Barak and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Olmert accused Barak of planning to buy a sixth submarine not because this was what the IDF needed (then Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi was vehemently against such a purchase) but because the Germans bribed him. Eventually, it was Olmert who ended up being sentenced to prison over taking a bribe. Takes one to know one?

The reason Lieut. Gen. Ashkenazi was against the deal was that it was being paid for out of the shekel part of the IDF budget, rather than the US aid dollars.

As the new Dolphin class submarine arrives, in 2018, one of its older sisters will be decommissioned. Despite past IDF reluctance, the Israeli Navy has now developed a five-submarine strategy, and will buy two more new Dolphins to replace older ones, all with German subsidies.

The diesel-electric Dolphin 2-class submarines, developed and constructed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG for the Israeli Navy, are the largest submarines to have been built in Germany since World War II. Each Dolphin-class submarine is capable of carrying a combined total of up to 16 torpedoes, as well as cruise missiles with a range of 930 miles. This means the Israeli subs can hit anywhere in Iran should the need arise, including with nuclear warheads.

According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, the Dolphin class submarines are nuclear armed, offering Israel a sea based second strike capability, in case its own territory had been struck by nuclear weapons and its land bases had been destroyed. It could still wipe out Iran, for instance.

Most of Israel’s Dolphins are normally based in the Mediterranean, but at least one was sent through the Suez Canal to the Red Sea for exercises in June 2009, and docked in the naval base in Eilat, probably as a warning to Iran. According to Haaretz, the Eilat naval base is strategically unsuited for Dolphin class boats, and getting them out of the Red Sea at a time of war would necessarily involve the consent of Egypt and Saudi Arabia who both control the Straits of Tiran.

According to The London Sunday Times, the Israeli Navy keeps at least one submarine equipped with nuclear missiles permanently of the Lebanese and Syrian coast.

Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems Ltd. has for the first time ever, successfully tested a 12-meter-long unmanned surface vessel (USV), complete with launching a torpedo.

The system is comprised of replaceable mission modules, with two vessels capable of being operated and controlled in concert using a single Mission Control System (MCS), from manned ships or from the shore. According to Elbit the system provides “mission planning and on-line operation in known and unknown areas, including area survey, search, detection, classification, identification, neutralization and verification. It is equipped to search the entire water volume and operate underwater vehicles to identify and neutralize mines.”

The Seagull was tested in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea off Israel’s northern coastline near Haifa. The trial successfully proved the system’s ability to install, carry and launch lightweight torpedoes (underwater missiles).

“The success of this test demonstrates Seagull’s modular mission system capability, enabling a highly effective ASW (anti-submarine warfare) configuration of high-performance dipping sonar using two single tube torpedoes,” said Ofer Ben-Dov, Elbit Systems Vice President of the Naval Systems Business Line ISTAR Division.

“The test highlighted Seagull’s capacity to detect and engage submarines in addition to its ability to detect and destroy sea mines, all using the same multi-mission USV system in modular configurations.

“This new and important capability has, to date, only been available to navies through manned vehicles,” Ben-Dov explained.

The USV is to be used in unmanned maritime missions such as anti-submarine warfare, counter-mine operations, or the protection of offshore oil and gas rigs such as those currently operating in Israel’s Tamar and Leviathan gas reserves, among numerous others.

There have been numerous threats to Israel’s natural gas fields by the Lebanon-based Hezbollah terror organization as well as by the Lebanese government and others over the past several years.

The new Seagull USV will be a new and versatile element in the defense system employed to protect those assets, as well as defend Israel’s coastline from Iranian and other potential terrorist suppliers attempting to provide arms and other contraband to Hamas in Gaza.

Iran announced on Monday it has manufactured a new unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that can reach Israel and can carry two 330-pound bombs.

That really sounds scary. It conjures up a scene of a drone infiltrating Israel with two small nuclear bombs that can annihilate the country and bring an Islamic peace to the world. The threat, of course, is intended to strike fear into the hearts of Washington and Jerusalem, who now are expected to shiver in their boots and say “yes” to whatever Iran wants.

There is no proof that this new drone does not exist. Nor is there proof that is does exist.

Let’s assume for a minute the “Fotros” drone really does have a range of 620 miles.

Dr. Eldad Pardo, a Hebrew University expert on Iran, told The Jewish Press Monday, “It is one thing to make a drone that can reach Israel, but it is another thing to have the technological capability to do something with it.”

While not pooh-poohing Iran’s technological ability, Dr. Pardo said a drone needs highly sophisticated electronic systems to be able to do any damage.

He noted, “The drone looks very similar to others. We will have to wait for a few days and see if anyone notices something that would indicate it is a ruse.”

Iran bragged that the new drone “is equipped with state-of-the-art light cameras for reconnaissance.”

Its official media stated, “In recent years, Iran has made great achievements in its defense sector and has attained self-sufficiency in producing essential military equipment and systems.”

Dr. Pardo pointed out that Iran also is capable of using Photoshop.

Let’s take a look at some of Iran’s amazing achievements, some of which have been announced one after the other in the past three years.

Most of the regime’s announcements came at a convenient time when it was necessary to counter Israeli and Israeli threats.

Last month, Iran unveiled a supposed suicide combat drone. It did not take long for even amateurs to notice that the nose and tail appeared to be held together by duct tape.

Last January, Iran said it sent a monkey into space but provided no details of when and where the launch took place, if it ever did.

“Before” and “after” flight pictures clearly showed different monkeys. Iran’s Propaganda Ministry quickly came up with an explanation. Someone in its media department simply mixed up a picture of a monkey two years, ago.

How’s that for quick thinking?

Two years ago, Iran claimed it launched a rocket with a mouse, a turtle and worms. Nothing has been heard about that achievement since then, but it would be interesting to know how everyone got along during the ride.

Dr. Pardo said that last November, Iran boasted of a UAV that had the capacity to take off vertically, “but they took the picture from a journal,” he told The Jewish Press. The image of the supposed vertical take-off drone the image looks almost identical to a picture of a drone from a university in Japan.

This past February, Iran released photos of a brand-new stealth fighter, a remarkable feat – until it became clear that it was only three-quarters of the size of a plane. Furthermore, a photo showed the “stealth fighter” flying over a mountain at the same angle of a stock photo.

In 2008, the media arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards released a photo of four missiles being launched. It was an amazing accomplishment. One of the rockets, including its exhaust trail, was exactly like another one of the rockets. If its rocket-producing capability is like its Photoshop capability, Iran really needs a new Propaganda Minister.

In November 2011, Iranian media announced is added two new submarines to its fleet. The following month, the official Fars (or is it Farce?) News Agency reported, “ The Iranian Navy plans to test-fire a mid-range surface-to-air missile,… the first time that such a missile is launched from navy vessels.”

The same month – it seems the Propaganda Ministry was working overtime – Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi “announced Iran’s high capabilities in building UAVs, and said the country is mass-producing new types of combat drones.” Fars reported. He also said Iran has “already produced several types of combat drones, as well, and we are now mass-producing a number of them.”

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told Israelis Thursday night to stay calm despite the likelihood of a U.S. strike on Syria, reassuring the country, “At present there is no need to change daily routines.”

Following a meeting with defense officials and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, the Prime Minister stated on a YouTube video, “Despite the low assessment regarding Israel’s involvement in what is going on in Syria, we decided to deploy Iron Dome batteries as well as our other intercept systems. We are not involved in the civil war in Syria. But I would like to reiterate, if anyone one tries to harm Israel’s citizens, the IDF will respond very strongly.”

IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz said the IDF is “ready for any scenario.”

The calm contrasts with near-panic reaction by some citizens earlier this week when President Barack Obama all but issued a formal invitation to a war, virtually announcing that the United States would attack Syria by Thursday night.

All that was missing on the invitation was, “Please dress accordingly. Black tie optional.”

Britain already had nudged President Barack Obama to go to war, and the President’s aides told news sources that a strike was inevitable. Britain got cold feet and decided maybe it should consult with the House of Commons.

It voted late Thursday night voted 285-272 against the Government’s motion on the principle of military intervention in Syria, and Prime Minister David Cameron, after having previously said a military strike is necessary to prevent future chemical warfare, stated after the vote, “I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”

Now, Obama looks like a jerk after beating the war drums and then losing the drumsticks.

He went out on the limb several weeks ago when he said that he would intervene militarily in Syria if chemical weapons were used. Assad used them again an again, 13 times by one count, but Obama backed off because there was no “conclusive proof” that his loyalists, not the rebels, deployed poison gas.

The came last week’s catastrophe and President Obama’s bravado that made him King for Day in Western media until people started asking questions.

One of them might be no other than the man himself, who in 2007 quoted a former professor of constitutional law as saying, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Of course, Obama could say that the security of the United States is threatened by the Assad regime’s use of nerve gas to kill more than 1,000 Syrians.

The Obama administration, like others before, have no trouble declaring that moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem would endanger national security, but the rules of the game change when it comes to Syria.

Russia and China, of course, bitterly oppose the idea of an attack, and Russia sent an anti-submarine ship to the Mediterranean Sea to show its strength. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated, “External military intervention is contrary to the U.N. charter aims and the basic norms governing international relations and could exacerbate instability in the Middle East.”

Iran, of course, promises to preserve stability by assisting Assad and blow up any U.S. jets that come near Syria, where Assad’s military’s knees are shaking so much that it is hurriedly removing Scud missiles from bases that might be targeted by the United States.

Everyone is trying to show he is stronger than the other, and everyone is threatening the other. Everyone is bluffing, and every government involved in this mess has lost its marbles, except for Israel. Even though Israel stands to lose the most if Assad, who already can be considered off his rocker, decides to use the opportunity of certain death to destroy Israel along the way, it feels secure.

Little Israel is not as nervous as most media makes it out to be. Yes, there were long lines at gas mask distribution centers, but there were even more people shopping at the malls.

Since Israel has a healthy population of Arabs, any poison gas attack will not discriminate between Jews and Arabs, unless it falls smack dab in the middle of Ramallah, where Jews, of course, are not allowed to live.

The biggest problem for Israel is not an American air strike, and it is difficult to see how Obama can get out of it without making the United States look like the worlds’ biggest sissy. The bigger problem will be what Israel faces on the other side of the border after an air strike.

In case everyone in Northeast Asia missed it, in spite of their intelligence and early-warning networks which have assuredly been tracking it in fine detail, the Obama Defense Department announced on Monday that the U.S. has been deterring North Korea by sending B-52 bombers on practice runs in its vicinity. The specter of nuclear deterrence was clarified by Deputy Secretary Ashton Carter:

Deputy defense secretary Ashton Carter said during a visit to South Korea on Monday that the bomber flights are part of the U.S. “extended deterrence”—the use of U.S. nuclear forces to deter North Korea, which conducted its third underground nuclear test Feb. 12.

Nukes! I say. Nukes! Pay attention, dudes.

As Bill Gertz demurely puts it, “It is unusual for the Pentagon to make such overt statements about the use of strategic nuclear forces in Asia Pacific.”

Deterrence. Indeed. That’s because such overt statements are a form of strutting and posturing that makes the U.S. look foolish. Kim Jong-Un may be a weirdo who hangs out with Dennis Rodman, but he knows we have nukes. North Korea wants nukes because the U.S., Russia, and China have them, and, in the crudest sense, they make us powerful – if not invincible, at least hard for anyone else to deter.

Making pointed comments about “extended deterrence” comes off as a novice’s imitation of what he thinks a tough security policy sounds like. It’s kind of informative, in fact: this is what the political left thinks is necessary for achieving deterrence. You have to remind everyone about your nukes.

It’s not like decision-makers in North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia, and China have been unaware of our big exercise with the B-52 participation. Their radars track the B-52s all over the air space off the coast of Northeast Asia. Each of them has a foreign-forces guide that informs every soldier and airman of the nuclear role played by the B-52 in the U.S. deterrence arsenal. They fully understand what they’re seeing when the B-52s show up.

But to publicly emphasize the U.S. nuclear deterrent in this circumstance is misdirected anyway, if the deterrence target is North Korea. For Pyongyang, evidence of the U.S. commitment to South Korea has been shown most effectively by our conventional military cooperation, which includes thousands of troops stationed in the South. The nuclear threat is always implicitly there, but it isn’t needed to deter Kim Jong-Un. We can take him down without going nuclear. The audience for nuclear deterrence is Russia and China, and the point of it has always been to deter them from trying to settle the Korean situation themselves, to the detriment of our allies and interests in the region.

Is there any sense being fostered by anyone in the Obama administration that China or Russia needs special nuclear-deterring in the current situation with North Korea? Does anyone at all, even outside the administration, think that’s necessary? I don’t see that theme being retailed anywhere. It makes no sense to rattle the nuclear saber at Kim Jong-Un. But no case has been made that it ought to be rattled at Vladimir Putin or Li Keqiang either.

Nukes aren’t something you wave around like a drunk brandishing a knife. The current situation has that feel to it, however.

Consider another aspect the situation. The Northeast Asian nations are sophisticated enough to understand: that U.S. nuclear-armed submarines are not sitting “near South Korean waters,” as claimed in additional South Korean news reporting cited by Gertz. Sitting near South Korean waters would be pointless. If a U.S nuke were ever launched at North Korea from a submarine, it would be launched from out in the Pacific by a ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). We don’t have any other submarine-launched nukes today.

The nuclear Tomahawk missile (TLAM-N), formerly launched by attack submarines, was removed from U.S. ships and submarines in 1991 and put in storage. Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review recommended eliminating the TLAM-N from the U.S. inventory, and, as described by the Federation of American Scientists, the new 2013 version of the Navy’s baseline instruction on nuclear weapons contains no section on the TLAM-N. This indicates that the TLAM-N is no longer in the inventory of nuclear weapons.

All tactical nuclear weapons having now been retired from the U.S. arsenal, there is no submarine-launched nuke that could be fired from a position “near South Korean waters.” No one in Northeast Asia lacks the intelligence or resources to figure that out. How did that impression get left with the South Korean media?

Perhaps the Obama administration imagines that it’s appropriate to pointedly warn North Korea about our nukes because Kim has a nuclear weapon himself? The leap of logic here is fatal to stability, if that’s the thinking. Even if Kim expended his one or handful of nuclear warheads, it is in the highest degree unlikely that we would use nukes on him, for the simple reason that it isn’t necessary. If Kim getting one nuke causes the U.S. to begin treating North Korea like a credible nuclear power, then that one nuke has accomplished its purpose, and everyone else across the globe will want to try it.

There might be a neighborhood in which having a crude warhead or two makes one a member of an elite nuclear-armed “club” – but it isn’t Northeast Asia. North Korea has not achieved the ultimate goal of the nuclear-armed dictator: invulnerability to deterrence. Kim is still badly over matched in every way by Russia, China, and the U.S. – and, in fact, is over matched conventionally by South Korea and Japan as well, if it came to that. It is unseemly and off-kilter for the U.S. to get into a nuclear showdown with North Korea.

There might or might not be utility in giving a bit of “informational” emphasis to our exercise series with South Korea right now, with the North being so obstreperous. But there is no need to issue reminders of our nuclear capabilities. Doing so, in fact, comes off as uncalibrated and a bit hysterical.